From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id CvwWAnjJ32Jy1hoAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 07:01:12 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id ECB4B1E9EB; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 07:01:11 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=n8uvKO0x; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EF261E87E for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 07:01:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1743857B92 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 11:01:09 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2A1743857B92 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1658833269; bh=zK2m1SxNauLxEZRtbeSanhS8zMn1p+XU0l23nFZeEMQ=; h=Date:To:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=n8uvKO0xFhZVE+u1G7uBoT+Q+jT/MgbOcVnj2VxQNfiuvn0YpzCXI8i6BKo8BmPcR W3cObdZN0FQglMo1mFCitwgiIUl0PHQbAnilGk0oRJSN4inrD+z0p/TWDZ1Zqf622z 8ZH4gVDqKJ3voHcFgj3W9jhzA6tqFvn4/+vYx/S4= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EB693858D32 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 11:00:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 1EB693858D32 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:36162) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGIIw-0007Gx-52; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 07:00:46 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=4098 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGIIv-000188-LM; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 07:00:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 14:00:50 +0300 Message-Id: <83a68wdtp9.fsf@gnu.org> To: Philippe Waroquiers In-Reply-To: <459ea883bef4b9af65194bd3e5ed4de78b600c62.camel@skynet.be> (message from Philippe Waroquiers on Mon, 25 Jul 2022 22:35:45 +0200) Subject: Re: [RFA] Allow to document user-defined aliases. References: <20220725041113.185127-1-philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be> <831qu9fna0.fsf@gnu.org> <459ea883bef4b9af65194bd3e5ed4de78b600c62.camel@skynet.be> X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > From: Philippe Waroquiers > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2022 22:35:45 +0200 > > > But it doesn't do much harm, either. Moreover, it is useful to tell > > the user that some handy aliases exist related to the command. > The idea/reasoning is that if the user documents specifically the alias, > it means that the alias is not properly documented by the doc of the > aliased command. I'm questioning the over-reaching validity of this assumption. I understand that this would be your logic, but I'm asking whether some other GDB users could have a different perspective on this. > I can for sure implement the alias -s option if there is an agreement > that this is better. Let's see what others think. Mine is just one opinion. Thanks.